Tepper, Stewart J.

Abstract Objective To assess healthcare costs and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) among adult patients who newly initiated erenumab in the United States. Methods This retrospective, non‐interventional analysis included adult patients (aged ≥18 years) newly initiating erenumab and who had three consecutive monthly claims for erenumab (11/1/2017–9/1/2019) from the Komodo Health database. Outcomes included migraine‐related and all‐cause costs, use of other preventive/acute migraine medications, and HCRU. All outcomes were compared during the 180‐day pre‐ versus the 180‐day post‐index periods. Cost outcomes were also assessed for longer periods including post‐index Days 91–270 and monthly mean post‐index costs for the longest time of continuous insurance enrollment. Results Overall, 1839 patients with migraine were included for analysis. Compared to the 180‐day pre‐index period, an increase in total migraine‐related costs (+$2639; p < 0.0001), migraine‐related prescription costs (+$3435, p < 0.0001), all‐cause total costs (+$2977; p < 0.001), and all‐cause prescription costs (+$4102; p < 0.0001) were observed during the 180‐day post‐index period after adjusting for covariates. Conversely, reduction in migraine‐related medical costs (−$896; p < 0.0001), and significantly lower odds of migraine‐related emergency room visits (odds ratio [OR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44–0.82; p = 0.001), migraine‐related office visits (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.53–0.64; p < 0.0001), and migraine‐related neurologist visits (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.63–0.75; p < 0.0001) were observed during the 180‐days post‐index period. There were significant decreases in the odds of having overall preventive migraine medications (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75–0.87; p < 0.0001), acute‐migraine medications (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85–1.00; p = 0.038), and triptan (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.73–0.85; p < 0.0001) during the 180‐day post‐index period. Sensitivity analyses on cost outcomes found no statistically significant differences in pre‐index migraine‐related costs compared to post‐index migraine‐related costs when assessing longer post‐index follow‐up periods. Conclusion Initiation of therapy with a novel treatment is often associated with an increase in overall healthcare costs due to the entrance costs associated with novel therapy. For a chronic condition such as migraine, cost versus health benefits should be evaluated over a long period (e.g., ≥2 years) to better understand the true benefits of therapy. Data from this study suggest that the entrance cost for erenumab, the primary driver of the high post‐index prescription costs gets mitigated by reduced medical costs over long‐term follow‐up. The results indicate better disease management in adult patients with migraine, which should be an important consideration for both patients and payors, as these findings have shown an offset between migraine‐related prescription and medical costs.

Abstract Objective Assess the long‐term efficacy and safety of erenumab in patients with chronic migraine with acute medication overuse. Background Overuse of acute medication in patients with chronic migraine has been linked to greater pain intensity and disability and may diminish the effectiveness of preventive therapies. Methods This 52‐week open‐label extension study followed a 12‐week double‐blind placebo‐controlled study in which patients with chronic migraine were randomized 3:2:2 to placebo or once‐monthly erenumab 70 mg or 140 mg. Patients were stratified by region and medication overuse status. Patients received erenumab 70 mg or 140 mg throughout or switched from erenumab 70 to 140 mg (based on protocol amendment to augment safety data at higher dose). Efficacy was assessed in patients with and without medication overuse at parent study baseline. Results Of 609 patients enrolled in the extension study, 252/609 (41.4%) met the criteria for medication overuse at parent study baseline. At Week 52, the mean change in monthly migraine days from parent study baseline was −9.3 (95% confidence interval: −10.4, −8.1 days) in the medication overuse subgroup versus −9.3 (−10.1, −8.5 days) in the non‐medication overuse subgroup (combined erenumab doses); proportion of patients achieving ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days at Week 52 was 55.9% (90/161; 48.2%, 63.3%) versus 61.3% (136/222; 54.7%, 67.4%), respectively. Among baseline users of acute migraine‐specific medication, the mean change in monthly migraine‐specific medication days at Week 52 was −7.4 (−8.3, −6.4 days) in the medication overuse subgroup versus −5.4 (−6.1, −4.7 days) in the non–medication overuse subgroup. Most patients (197/298; 66.1%) in the medication overuse subgroup transitioned to non‐overuse status by Week 52. Erenumab 140 mg was associated with numerically greater efficacy than erenumab 70 mg across all endpoints. No new safety signals were identified. Conclusion Long‐term erenumab treatment demonstrated sustained efficacy and safety in patients with chronic migraine with and without acute medication overuse.

In 1995, a committee of the International Headache Society developed and published the first edition of the Guidelines for Controlled Trials of Drugs in Cluster Headache. These have not been revised. With the emergence of new medications, neuromodulation devices and trial designs, an updated version of the International Headache Society Guidelines for Controlled Clinical Trials in Cluster Headache is warranted. Given the scarcity of evidence-based data for cluster headache therapies, the update is largely consensus-based, but takes into account lessons learned from recent trials and demands by patients. It is intended to apply to both drug and neuromodulation treatments, with specific proposals for the latter when needed. The primary objective is to propose a template for designing high quality, state-of-the-art, controlled clinical trials of acute and preventive treatments in episodic and chronic cluster headache. The recommendations should not be regarded as dogma and alternative solutions to particular methodological problems should be explored in the future and scientifically validated.

Abstract Objective This post hoc analysis in patients medically diagnosed with chronic migraine (CM) and medication‐overuse headache (MOH) evaluated reductions in the use of acute headache medication (AHM) and sustained changes in the diagnostic status of CM and MOH following eptinezumab treatment in the PROMISE‐2 study. Background Eptinezumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits calcitonin gene‐related peptide, is approved in the United States for the preventive treatment of migraine. A previous analysis showed that eptinezumab reduced monthly migraine days and was well tolerated in the subgroup of PROMISE‐2 patients diagnosed with both CM and MOH. Methods The phase 3, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled PROMISE‐2 study (NCT02974153) randomized adults with CM to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo (administered intravenously every 12 weeks for up to two doses). MOH was prospectively diagnosed at screening by trained physicians based on 3 months of medication history and International Classification of Headache Disorders‐3β criteria. This post hoc analysis evaluated changes in total and class‐specific days of AHM usage, the percentage of patients using AHM at or above MOH diagnostic thresholds, and the percentage of patients experiencing monthly headache and migraine day frequency below diagnostic thresholds for MOH and/or CM. Results In PROMISE‐2, 431/1072 (40.2%) patients with CM were diagnosed with MOH (eptinezumab 100 mg, n = 139; 300 mg, n = 147; placebo, n = 145) and were included in this analysis. Total monthly AHM use decreased from 20.6 days/month at baseline to 10.6 days/month over 24 weeks of treatment (49% decrease) with eptinezumab 100 mg, from 20.7 to 10.5 days/month (49% decrease) with eptinezumab 300 mg, and from 19.8 to 14.0 days/month (29% decrease) with placebo. Numerically greater decreases from baseline with eptinezumab were also observed for individual drug classes. In each study month, the percentages of patients who were below MOH thresholds were numerically higher for both eptinezumab doses compared with placebo, as were the percentages of patients experiencing headache and migraine frequency below CM thresholds. Of patients with available data across the entire treatment period, 29.0% (58/200) of patients treated with eptinezumab stopped meeting and remained below diagnostic thresholds for both CM and MOH during Weeks 1–24, as well as 6.3% (6/96) of patients who received placebo. Conclusions Across 24 weeks of treatment, eptinezumab reduced AHM use in patients diagnosed with CM and MOH. More than one‐fourth (29%) of patients treated with eptinezumab did not meet the diagnostic thresholds for either CM or MOH for the entire treatment period.

Abstract Objective To assess the risk of hypertension in patients with migraine who received erenumab in clinical trials and in the postmarketing setting. Background Erenumab is a monoclonal antibody for migraine prevention that targets the calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP) receptor. Hypertension is a theoretical risk for inhibitors of the CGRP pathway. Although no evidence of an association between erenumab treatment and hypertension was observed during the clinical development program, adverse events (AEs) of hypertension have been identified in the postmarketing setting. Methods Safety data from four phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials were used to perform a pooled analysis of hypertension AEs in patients with migraine receiving erenumab. Postmarketing AEs of hypertension were identified from the Amgen Global Safety database from May 17, 2018, through January 31, 2020. Results In the pooled analysis of clinical trials, hypertension AEs (placebo, 9/1043 [0.9%]; erenumab 70 mg, 7/893 [0.8%]; erenumab 140 mg, 1/507 [0.2%]) and percentage of patients initiating medication to treat hypertension (12/1043 [1.2%], 7/893 [0.8%], 1/507 [0.2%], respectively) were similar across treatment groups. A total of 362 AEs of hypertension were identified from the postmarketing setting, 26.2% (95/362) of which were serious, >245,000 patient‐years of exposure. The exposure‐adjusted incidence of hypertension was 0.144 per 100 patient‐years. Conclusions Clinical trials did not demonstrate an increased risk of hypertension with erenumab compared with placebo, and AE rates of hypertension reported with erenumab in the postmarketing setting were generally low. Additional data are needed to fully characterize the extent to which hypertension is a risk associated with erenumab.

Abstract Background Erenumab is a human anti‐calcitonin gene‐related peptide receptor monoclonal antibody approved for migraine prevention. We sought to further assess the temporal patterns of response to erenumab in patients with chronic migraine (CM), specifically the onset and sustainability of monthly migraine day (MMD) response. Methods This is a post hoc analysis of a 12‐week, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study of erenumab for migraine prevention in patients with CM (≥15 headache days/month, including ≥8 migraine days/month). Onset and sustainability were assessed according to MMD reduction from baseline, with the following response categories: responders (≥50% reduction), partial responders (≥30% and <50%), or nonresponders (<30%). Results Among the erenumab 140 mg group ( n = 187), 54.0% (101/187) achieved a response at any month during the study with a median time to onset of monthly response of 1 month. This improvement was maintained in most patients with continued treatment. An initial response was achieved at Month 1 by 28.3% (53/187) of patients; 69.8% (37/53) of whom maintained a response at Months 2 and 3. Although many patients responded early, some patients required longer treatment to achieve a response; 79.4% (27/34) of initial partial responders and 21.0% (21/100) of initial nonresponders subsequently achieved a response. Similar findings were observed for the erenumab 70mg group ( n = 188). Conclusion A majority of erenumab‐treated patients with CM who achieved an initial response at Month 1 sustained this benefit. Many patients responded later with continued treatment. Our data support recommendations to assess outcomes after ≥3 months of preventive treatment with erenumab in CM.

Abstract Background Calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors were introduced in the United States (US) in 2018. To understand the changing patterns of preventive treatment following the introduction of these new agents, we must first characterize the patterns which preceded their introduction. Objective To characterize the burden, unmet need, and treatment patterns in patients with migraine initiating preventive migraine medications before the introduction of CGRP inhibitors in the US. Methods Between March 2016 and October 2017, we enrolled episodic (EM) and chronic migraine (CM) patients initiating or changing preventive treatment at primary care or neurology clinic visits in the US, in a real‐world observational study using a prospective cohort design. At baseline and monthly thereafter for 6 months, we collected data from study sites and patients on migraine frequency, treatment modifications, migraine impact on functioning, and work productivity for a descriptive analysis of migraine patient experience and treatment patterns. Results From the sample of 234 completers, 118 had EM (50.4%) and 116 had CM (49.6%). Mean age at enrollment was 41 years (SD = 12) and mean age at first migraine diagnosis was 22 years (SD = 11). Most participants were females ( n = 204/234; 87.2%) and white ( n = 178/234; 76.1%). The majority ( n = 164/234; 70.1%) had not used preventive migraine treatment in the 5 years prior to enrollment (treatment naïve). At baseline, mean monthly migraine days were 9.6 days (SD = 5.0) for the preventive treatment naïve group and 12.4 days (SD = 7.0) for treatment experienced patients. The majority had severe Migraine Disability Assessment (Grade IV, total score ≥21), including 67.1% ( n = 110/164) of the preventive treatment naïve and 77.1% ( n = 54/70) of the preventive treatment experienced patients. Headache Impact Test total scores indicating severe impairment (score >59) occurred in 88.4% ( n = 145/164) of the treatment naïve and 88.6% ( n = 62/70) of treatment experienced patients. Mean work productivity loss as measured by the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire in the subsample of employed patients was 53.3% loss. The most used acute medications at baseline were nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory agents ( n = 124/234; 53.0%), acetaminophen‐based products ( n = 112/234; 47.9%), and triptans ( n = 105/234; 44.9%). The most commonly initiated preventive treatments were topiramate ( n = 100/234; 42.7%), tricyclic antidepressants ( n = 39/234; 16.7%), beta‐blockers ( n = 26/234; 11.1%), and onabotulinumtoxinA ( n = 24/234; 10.3%). Over the 6‐month follow‐up period, almost half of patients ( n = 116/234, 49.6%) modified their preventive treatment and discontinued treatment ( n = 88/312 total modifications; 28.2%) or modified their pattern of use by increasing, decreasing, or skipping doses ( n = 224/312 total modifications; 71.8%), often without seeking medical advice. Avoiding side effects was the main reason reported among patients who discontinued ( n = 52/88; 59.1%), decreased frequency or dose ( n = 37/89; 41.6%), and skipped doses ( n = 29/86; 33.7%). Perceived lack of efficacy was another frequent reason reported among those who discontinued ( n = 20/88; 22.7%), decreased frequency or dose ( n = 15/89; 16.9%), and skipped doses ( n = 18/86; 20.9%). Despite initiation of preventive treatment and improvements observed in number of headache and migraine days, migraine patients continued to experience substantial disability, headache impact, and reduced productivity throughout the 6‐month follow‐up period. Conclusions Prior to 2018, the burden of migraine was high for patients initiating preventive treatments. Despite having more than 9 days of migraine per month on average, the majority (70.1%) of patients initiating prevention had been treatment naïve, indicating underuse of preventive treatments. The preventive treatments used in this study were poorly tolerated and were reported by patients to lack efficacy, resulting in suboptimal adherence. The high discontinuation rates suggest that the preventive medications being offered during the period of the study did not meet the treatment needs of patients. In addition, the decisions by about half of patients to alter their prescribed treatment plan without consulting their provider can pose substantial health risks. These findings pertain to the broad set of preventive treatments initiated in this study and do not support inferences about individual preventive treatments, due to limitations in sample size. These findings suggest the need for more effective and better tolerated preventive treatment options.